Posted
by
Soulskillon Friday April 15, 2011 @05:53PM
from the stay-classy-guys dept.

Hugh Pickens writes "CNN has obtained a list of roughly 70 'behavioral indicators' that TSA behavior detection officers use to identify potentially 'high risk' passengers at the nation's airports, and report that arrogant complaining about airport security is one indicator TSA officers consider when looking for possible criminals and terrorists. When combined with other behavioral indicators, it could result in a traveler facing additional scrutiny. 'Expressing your contempt about airport procedures — that's a First Amendment-protected right,' says Michael German, a former FBI agent who now works as legal counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union. 'It's circular reasoning where, you know, I'm going to ask someone to surrender their rights; if they refuse, that's evidence that I need to take their rights away from them. And it's simply inappropriate.' Interestingly enough, some experts say terrorists are much more likely to avoid confrontations with authorities, saying an al-Qaeda training manual instructs members to blend in."

Depends on your point of view.Dissident speech instills terror in the minds of authority.

As evidenced throughout North Africa, Middle East and even China, at the moment. Yup. Those tyrants are very wary of anyone who so much as utters a disparaging wort about their cousin having a bad go with the local constabulary.

For an even better example, how about the fact the urinating in public can get you on the sex offender registry, meaning you will never work again. Or the fact that vandalism theft drug possession and fraud are listed as a felonies and felons can't vote. Correct me if I am wrong here but doesn't this mean that if you meet the wrong judge on the wrong day you can get your right to vote taken away as a punishment for writing political graffiti? Not to mention free speech zones and the constitution free zone.

I don't know about G.P.P., but I have yet to attack or bully a TSO. However, I most definitely speak out about TSA policies to anyone who will listen, on-line on my blog [blogspot.com] (warning -- shameless plug for my own blog), in comments to other articles (like here) or in person.

...schmucks like you who think you're entitled to do whatever you want the constitution (sic) to say.

Yeah, at least it's only us "bullies" interpreting the Constitution so that it says what we want, and not someone with real power like, say, the Executive Branch doing so. Can you say, "warrantless wiretapping", "habeas corpus", "1st Amendment rights", "2nd Amendment rights", "4th Amendment rights" just as off-the-top-of-my-head examples?

If you choose to act out, be disruptive and incite a riot at the airport, you open yourself to being detained just like any other crazy person.

:rolleyes: How, exactly, do you think we got the freedoms you so readily throw away? Civil disobedience has a long and distinguished reputation in this country. You might say the U.S. kinda even got it's start that way. Do you think Washington, Revere, Adams, Jefferson, Henry, et al were model citizens and the British just handed over sovereignty to them because they asked nicely? How about MLK, Jr.? Rosa Parks? I don't know about you, but personally, I'd feel more than just a little honored to be a "crazy person" like them.

I'm guessing you'd be one of the first in line to complain about the TSA being "too stupid to fall for a simple SE trick."

That sentence doesn't even make logical sense -- how would it even be possible to be "too stupid to fall for a...SE trick"?!?! I think you were trying to say that if someone were to bluster their way through a checkpoint by "arrogant complaining", G.P.P. (and, I presume, anyone who agrees with him, like myself) would be first in line to complain about it, no? No, if TSA were actually taking reasonable and intelligent steps to provide for-real security (rather than security theater) and weren't trampling our liberties to do so, I'd actually be rushing to their defense if something slipped through the cracks. Excrement occurs. There's no way to provide 100% security, and it's unrealistic to expect it. However, since TSA has become so far removed from the ideals this country is supposed to stand for, I'd have to say, yes, I would be first in line to complain about -- to the extent that it serves to dismantle this abomination.

after a report recorded his young child freaking out because of a patdown the TSA Rep stated that their rules clearly state they are not to give patdowns to children under the age of 10.

Citation? AFAIK that is simply not true. The TSA rules are secret, but they are most definitely allowed to pat down children. And, yes I have heard this directly from a number of TSOs. They even pat down newborns.

Not for the most part. Mostly they just find it annoying and respond by being authoritarian because they're pissed off. When reporters report on torture in Chechneya by the local strongman, they get killed because they're a pain to him. Not because the guy who tortures people every day is somehow afraid of them. He *should* be afraid of them. But mostly he's pissed at them. And he runs the apparatus of the state. He's not afraid of them--at most he's afraid that his bosses will replace him if anybody cares about new public knowledge that Russia sponsors terrorism.

Similarly (and obviously very differently, since most TSA employees are good people who are not actively torturing lots of innocent civilians, but similarly for the point about whether terror is inspired), TSA employees, like cops, are generally not terrified by dissident speech. They are annoyed by it because someone is making their day harder.

Well, you're entitled to your opinion, I guess. I just can't see how a "good person" could fondle people in an airport without puking.

They are annoyed by it because someone is making their day harder.

Cry me a river. I'm annoyed because even though I'd be one of the first ones up to defend an airliner from someone trying to blow it up, TSA wants to treat me -- and every other law-abiding citizen -- like one of the statistical anomalies who actually *does* want to bring down an airliner. That reaction is so far out of proportion to the scope of the problem that I'm continuously amazed that we are literally throwing billions of dollars at such a farce.

Cry me a river. I'm annoyed because even though I'd be one of the first ones up to defend an airliner from someone trying to blow it up, TSA wants to treat me -- and every other law-abiding citizen -- like one of the statistical anomalies who actually *does* want to bring down an airliner. That reaction is so far out of proportion to the scope of the problem that I'm continuously amazed that we are literally throwing billions of dollars at such a farce.

The outcome of the Milgram experiment doesn't mean that it's OK to do bad things. It simply shows that a disappointly large percentage of people are immoral and will do immoral things when told to. TSA agents groping little girls fall into that category.

The Stanford Prison Experiment [wikipedia.org] would probably be more relevant to the TSA situation than Milgram's experiment. However, both are great examples of the failings of humanity in a scientific context.

For proof, the answer is obvious - a terrorist doesn't just decide that airplanes are too well protected so they are going to give up on the idea of causing mayhem, they will just look for easier targets like shopping malls, movie theaters, concerts, etc. Since we have had zero attacks on alternate targets, its clear the TSA isn't protecting airplanes from anyone.

The worst we've seen have been run-of-the-mill lone gunmen type like the Ft Hood shooter and the DC sniper. Everybody else, like the Times Square bomber have been so incompetent they couldn't even build a working bomb and most of those convicted have been guilty of nothing more than talking trash within the earshot of a snitch looking to get criminal charges dropped in exchange for narcing out someone, anyone.

It's even worse than that. Of the several attempted airline bombings that occured since 9/11, not a single one was stopped because the would be terrorist was caught during pre-flight screening. In every single case, they managed to get the bomb past the TSA and were only foiled due to the intervention of other passengers on the flight.

Well, I think you can't really sayt that the TSA hasn't stopped attacks, you can say it has never caught. Who knows wether some attack was cancelled because of it?

That makes it as effective as praying for no more attacks. Who knows if it might work? I also notice that there has been no more attacks since I got a driver's license. Maybe the terrorists are afraid that I'll run them over. That must be it - or at least you can't know that it isn't... or maybe there is something wrong with this kind of argument?

No, he just added it to his collection of cool expensive shit that he stole from people. I've seen the type all over the world, amusing that we USAers don't think of all the many, many types of police we have as power tripping corrupt thieving bullying scum, but of course that's all they are.

My money is on most of the threats getting stopped by the government agencies and military units that we know very little about.

That doesn't pass muster for the very simple reason that anytime they even get a hint of "stopping a terrorist" the government trumpets it as a huge success. Of course it always turns out to be practically a non-event, like "plot" to blow up JFK airport by igniting a natural gas pipeline or the "plot" by a handful of wanna-be gang-bangers in Miami to blow up the Sears tower.

If there was some highly effective super-secret stealth military unit thwarting major terrorist attacks, then we would have heard abou

You know, soft moaning like you're enjoying the experience, and asking them to do redo particular parts works very well too. It's not a "complaint", but it'll weird them out enough to not want to touch you ever again.

I'm very straight, so it's hard to fake it, but apparently I do well enough.

Mmmm.. oh ya.. right there. do it again.. faster.. oohh... What are you doing after work, I fly back at 10pm..

No different from being in a prison then - except that in a prison the guards don't give a crap if your heartrate exceeds 70bpm.

And there is nothing to stop the terrorists from sending in a few decoy people that has a very annoying behavior just to numb the minds of the TSA people. In a chaotic situation it's a lot easier to slip under the radar.

One person complaining loudly about the scan/pat-down, another messing up the metal detector by acting very distracted a third with a weird bag that gives suspect s

If you ask a TSA employee, their job is not catching terrorists. Their job is preventing "dangerous items" from getting onto an aircraft. The problem is that if that really is their job, they're horrifically bad at it. They've missed box cutters, knives, a brick of primers for handloading, multiple handguns, Jamie Hyneman's 12" razor blades, and assorted other items I'd consider far more threatening than the leather bookmarks and silver cake servers they've been confiscating and fining people for.
They're awfully quick to claim "success" when they find someone with a doobie tucked into their shorts, though. My guess is that their publicly stated mission of "Transportation Safety" has taken a back seat to their new unstated mission of "drug interdictment."
Additionally, looking at pure statistics, in any interaction between the TSA and a single passenger it is almost infinitely more likely that the TSA employee is a thief, rapist, kidnapper, or bully than that the passenger is an actual terrorist bent on mayhem during the flight.
They don't actually contribute measurably to "transportation safety." So why should we put up with their theatre?

If you ask a TSA employee, their job is not catching terrorists. Their job is preventing "dangerous items" from getting onto an aircraft. The problem is that if that really is their job, they're horrifically bad at it.

That's not their job.

TSA was founded for several purposes:1. To shift the power over airport security to the federal government (several subpurposes to this -- among them shifting responsibility in the case of another failure, and creating a single point of influence for contractors to target.)2. To, simply by being created, be a visible act of "doing something", regardless of substantive effectiveness or lack thereof, in the immediate, wake of a major terrorist attack, and3. To condition the public to accept greater arbitrary intrusions on personal liberty.

#2 was a short term goal and was probably reasonably successful (it was a political measure, and there were lots of others at the same time, so its pretty hard to isolate its effectiveness); #1 was obviously successful in general (and its subpurposes seem to have been achieved effectively). Despite some pushback over some measures, #3 seems to have been successful at least in the context in which TSA operates (though its less clear how successful it has been at conditioning the public to except more intrusion generally.)

I guess that's why the Democrats got rid of the TSA as soon as they had the Presidency and congressional majorities? Damn, dude. You are fucking retarded. Enjoy blaming everything you don't like in your life on a political party.

In case any of us hadn't noticed, all of this authoritarian war-on-terrorism crap is taking place at a time when the rights and economic well-being of everyone in the middle class on down is under attack. It doesn't require a big stretch of the imagination to realize that this may all be in anticipation of the civil unrest and disobedience that often accompanies this kind of class warfare from above.

"Facecrime: An indication that a person is guilty of thoughtcrime based on their facial expression."

The article isn't about surveillance, it's about BDOs and SPOT [flyertalk.com] agents on the lookout for facecriminals.

"It was terribly dangerous to let your thoughts wander when you were in
any public place or within range of a telescreen. The smallest thing
could give you away. A nervous tic, an unconscious look of anxiety,
a habit of mutt

You realize that "government of the people, by the people, for the people" didn't even come around until 100 years after the country was founded and it was in a speech commemorating the dead in a battle during the civil war right? You know, the war where one side was fighting to remove themselves from the ruling of the federal government who wasn't listening to them and the other side was fighting to keep them under control of it?

It's no wonder that one liners get so much attention, but I don't think it mea

That's the cry of someone who wants the system kept as it is. The "official" mechanisms for changing the system don't work; they exist because they don't work. The system is stable, and one of the means by which it achieves that stability is by diverting those who would change it into ineffective paths. One of the other means, of course, is the cruder method of imprisoning or killing those who would change it.

Long before 9/11 happened I was called back to the ticket counter to open a bag on occasion, and once even stopped and questioned by a US Marshal and a DEA agent. Each time I stayed calm, answered their questions, and each time I got an apology for taking up my time, and I went on my way.

And what did all this politeness and tolerance get you? Right... more onerous searches and greater restrictions.

Please Remove Your Shoes
In this documentary, it shows the agreement between the FAA and airlines industries to put security at a low priority while getting passengers on planes as quickly as possible was the highest priority. A "red team" agent who audits security put a bomb in a suitcase, threw clothes on it and put a water bottle on top of the clothes. The screener detected the bag, opened it up, confiscated the water bottle and allowed the bag to go through.
TSA agents complained because he "thought outside the box" and invalidated the test because it was "unfair" to their procedures on how to audit security.
This documentary is from ex/current TSA, FAA, and air marshal agents. Did you know the TSA was more interested in having an air marshal dress code than actually "blending in" on the plane? The guy in a suit and tie sitting on the plane to Hawaii was a dead giveaway when everyone else was dressed appropriately.

Actually, I've had the pleasure of sitting by a few air marshals. It didn't come up in conversation, but when they're using a government issued computer, and looking at training photos, or reading documents that have a security clearance, it becomes more obvious. And ya, the sports coat and ankle holster are dead giveaways.

Hmmm.. Thinking about it, half the time I dress for business. Those trips, I'm getting off the plane and then to a meeting of some sort. When dressed like that, I'm treated very well and expedited through the line. t-shirt and jeans usually gets me a secondary screening.

I guess a crew cut and business dress clothes are a dead giveaway that I'm an agent of some sort.

I was doing some traveling with a coworker for a while. I started to play a game with him. It was "watch their behavior" game. Dress clothes? No problem. Casual clothes, problems. I only wore casual when we had plenty of time for the flight, as it'd add about 15 minutes for me at the checkpoint. Hey, for every minute they're harassing me, that's another minute they aren't harassing someone else. I can deal with verbal abuse, obtuse questioning, and a bit of molestation. If you close your eyes, it's like being at a massage parlor, except without the happy ending.

I went to Thailand for about two months last summer. I was just off a 36-hour flight (including a long layover) so I looked terrible, and I was wearing casual clothes. That, combined with that I apparently didn't have a good reason for going there according to them (I was just on vacation after finishing school and told them as such; I don't drink, use drugs or use prostitutes, I'm about the cleanest person possible coming off the plane from Thailand but they don't know that...) meant I was sent to secondar

Interestingly enough, some experts say terrorists are much more likely to avoid confrontations with authorities, saying an al-Qaeda training manual instructs members to blend in.

This seems like the most obvious flaw in reasoning, and probably didn't require expert research to predict. What nefarious character is going to draw attention to themselves when trying to get away with something evil? This didn't stand out as a "duh" to the folks crafting this list? That scares me too... assuming the goal of these criteria was to catch the bad guys, of course.

Actually, consider how magic tricks are pulled off. Through distraction. If you intentionally draw attention to something, you can oftentimes slip something else by unnoticed. Not, that I think this is the reasoning the TSA used.

If I was an alleged terrorist (and for the record, I'M NOT) the alleged terrorist would get a job at the airport as baggage handler, or as a someone who services the planes. Then the alleged terrorist would put a bomb in some luggage, or some C4 into soda cans or something and get them on the plane - the alleged terrorist wouldn't try to get through security, unless his plan was to blow up the security checkpoint, which would also be good from a terror perspective. Then they can move the security check points outside the terminal, then those get blown up. Then move them off property and check all the people before allowing them in to the airport, then car bomb gets that.

The worst thing we ever did was change our behavior and way of life after the hijackings in the 70's and obviously after 9/11. We showed the people who would do such things that we will modify our behavior in a predicable fashion based on their actions - a very bad idea. We are now in a reactive posture. The thing that's even worse is listening to the morons who travel talk about how the "security" measures make them feel safe. Really? I have a tiger repelling rock I'd like to sell you...

I tell you, freedom and human rights in America are doomed. The U.S. government will lead the American people in — and the West in general — into an unbearable hell and a choking life.

The preceding is a real quote, many of you know who said it, but if not, Google it...

And for the record, fuck the TSA. By all means, investigate me. I have the ACLU's phone number right here ready to go... I've said as much directly to my congressman and senators

If I was an alleged terrorist (and for the record, I'M NOT) the alleged terrorist would get a job at the airport as baggage handler, or as a someone who services the planes. Then the alleged terrorist would put a bomb in some luggage, or some C4 into soda cans or something and get them on the plane - the alleged terrorist wouldn't try to get through security, unless his plan was to blow up the security checkpoint, which would also be good from a terror perspective.

I work a lot at airports, and the security for staff can be tougher than the security for passengers (although the lines tend to be shorter). It's a real pain in the backside when you really do have to take tools through.

I don't fly any longer, because I'm almost certain that I'd get picked for screening and I refuse to submit to the machine or a manual search, and I would assert my 4th amendment rights if they attempted such and probably end up in jail for doing so. The fucking bastards.

Have you considered emigrating? It's easy to get a work permit here in Sweden if someone wants to employ you, and after five or ten years (don't remember exactly) it's easy to be naturalised and get a citizenship. We can always use more competent people.

So if you RTFA, you'll notice that the '20th Hijacker' (Mohammed al-Qahtani) was caught because the TSA agent became suspicious (for whatever reason, probably profiling if I had my guess), asked why he didn't have a return flight ticket, and the hijacker became very angry and confrontational about it.

Ten years later, getting angry about security is now on the list of things to look out for. From a pencil-pusher's standpoint it seems an almost reasonable thing to add to the list, but I still don't like it.

The TSA did not exist on 9/11. Mohammed al-Qahtani was turned away by immigration after his flight landed in the US. He was chosen for Secondary inspection because he didn't fill out the paperwork properly. He was denied admission for a long list of suspicious activity ($2800 cash, no hotel, no return ticket, multiple stories, etc) in addition to being "creepy." That case really doesn't have much in common with what the TSA is attempting to do. That is also CBP's job. They are tasked with undesirable people out of the United States. When the TSA does their job (keeping weapons, explosives, and incendiaries off airplanes), it does not matter who boards an aircraft.

The AAPD asked numerous questions concerning the case. I explained that apart from not having a return ticket and possibly not having sufficient funds, the subject appeared to be malafide. I further explained to the AAPD that when the subject looked at me, I felt a bone chilling cold effect. The bottom line is, “He gave me the creeps”.

You have idiot politicians supervising idiot bureaucrats who supervise idiot workers carrying out idiot policies upon idiot people who accept it without question. Anybody who does question it is a real threat to the idiots who are only smart enough to protect their own jobs, not the country.

Interestingly enough, some experts say terrorists are much more likely to avoid confrontations with authorities, saying an al-Qaeda training manual instructs members to blend in."

No kidding. As someone trying to evade detection in a crowd I could (a) do something that draws attention, or (b) try to be as unremarkable as possible and take steps to make any interaction dull and quickly forgotten. The first is more likely to bring the authorities my way, and the second is less likely. So... let's see... I'm going to... wait, wait, don't tell me... I'll pick... um...

(Warning, this post contains high concentrations of sarcasm. Use with appropriate caution.)

Good one but in truth virtually nobody complains at the actual checkpoint, to TSA people. I fly a lot more than most people, generally at least twice a month. My experience is in general everybody falls in line, does what they are told and gets the hell out of there as fast as possible. Rare is the case when somebody is outwardly angry. Even people who have to dump out entire bags of over 3.4oz size toiletries do so with a smile and only complain once they've made it through.

This is the United States of America. Anyone who doesn't complain about even the slightest inconvenience obviously is not from here. So why would they check the people who do complain when that's the American way?

According to CNN, the TSA is actually more ineffective than I initially thought:

False Positives-

Members of Congress also expressed concern about the number of "false positives" -- people flagged for additional screening that resulted in nothing being found. For every person correctly identified as a "high risk" traveler by (the behavior detection officers), 86 were misidentified, Willis said. At random screening, for every person correctly identified, 794 were misidentified.

Effectiveness at detecting terrorists-

Experts agree that the fact that there is an extremely small number of terrorists makes it hard to evaluate the effectiveness of behavioral observation programs. The Accountability Office said it looked at 23 occasions in which 16 individuals -- people later charged with terrorism-related activities -- passed through high-threat airports. None is known to have been identified. But it is not known if the behavior detection officers were working at the time, the agency said.

So, in the best case scenario, for every person ultimately charged with a crime (not necessarily convicted) 86 are misidentified. And that is using "trained" behavioral analysts. Most TSA searches are random, which results in one charge for every 794 false positives. Note also that nearly 40% of the charges are immigration related. Most of the rest are probably drug related.

The TSA can't point to a single incident where its random searches or behavioral analysis actually has prevented a terrorist attack. Despite their utter failure, the TSA plans to spend another $1.2 billion over the course of five years on behavior analysis techniques.

Instead of the Million-dollar scanner, I choose to get the "pat down." I don't complain, in fact -- just the opposite.

I'm not sure if I get on the security list or not, but my involuntary groans of pleasure, sure seem to BOTHER them a lot.

Try going back through security, and if questioned, say, "I'm not sure if I was searched well enough the first time." Get some friends with torn clothing, and whisper to each other about your "favorite" inspector.

Ask them if they are coming out with a "Hunks of TSA" calendar.

If we don't let terrorists on the plane -- they'll just be blowing us up in the parking lot anyway./sarcasm

Just like people carrying drugs in their cars might suddenly get angry and combative with police about being pulled over "for no good reason".

Who told you that nonsense?They don't. The people moving drugs use rental cars, since the car can get seized, and they tend to do the speed limit or right around it. If they get a ticket they are as nice as possible, no reason to want to attract attention. Your average methhead does not of course fit the description I gave, but that is because he is a moron meth user not someone moving large amount of drugs for profit.

Just like people carrying drugs in their cars might suddenly get angry and combative with police about being pulled over "for no good reason".

Huh? If you ask my cop friends, this almost never happens. Usually the confrontational people are the ones with nothing to hide, and they know it. The ones with drugs in their trunk are always very reasonable, in the hopes they'll get to 'go on their way.'

1) unlikely and pain in the ass to catch since lots of stuff sets off the detectors.2) define weapon? I bet I could kill a man with a pen if I wanted.3) how you plan on finding those?4) or maybe I am nervous because I hate having the TSA hassle me.

The reality is terrorism is such an edge case we would do better by spending all this money on fixing our roads. We would save many times as many lives per million dollars spent.

1) Use smarter screeners. We don't need better scanners or more of them, just screeners able to stay alert and recognize a problem.2) Anything that can take down a plane (aka the pilots). As far as I'm concerned, as soon as they secured the doors, a 9/11 style attack is no longer possible (and nobody's tried it again). Killing a few passengers doesn't matter because other passengers will react quickly now to defend themselves.3) As long as it can't blow up the plane or kill the pilots, it shouldn't be on the list anyway.4) There's a difference between irritation and nervousness. The former is a typical reaction associated with normal travelers, the latter is an atypical reaction associated with terrorists and criminals.

We shouldn't be worried about anything getting on a plane unless it can hijack the plane or cause parts of it to rain down in little pieces. Anything else can be just as effective as a terrorist act anywhere else on the ground. We've secured cockpit doors to prevent hijackings. Now the terrorists are more interested in explosives. They've used new methods pretty much each time, and we've only been playing catch-up. What's the one common factor in all of them? Passengers reacted quickly and put a stop to it. Personally I don't mind if there's a guy on my plane who tries to light his shoe on fire, as long as flight attendants and other passengers react quickly when they see him try. So for goodness sake, let me keep my shoes on in the security checkpoint.

And let's not forget, if the terrorists are smart enough to make it to a security checkpoint without detection already, they're smart enough to get through the security checkpoint without being stopped. TSA should be our last line of defense, not our only line of defense.

No need to do that. Just drive to the nearest border, Canadian or Mexican and take your flight from there. I admit this works best if you live near one of the borders. USA, encouraging you to spend your money elsewhere more and more each day.

You haven't been paying attention, have you? TSA/DHS has also been investigating using the AIT technology on the effing STREET, too (source: epic.org -- look it up). For that matter, I can print whatever I want on the ticket to an event I host, but if I were to try to force people to submit to either an AIT scanner or "enhanced pat downs" you and I both know I'd end up in jail.

by printing something on paper, that alone does not make it correct interpretation of law.

they also post 'no photos allowed' but that is a KNOWN falsehood and of course photos are 'allowed'. they make fear-mongering rules up all the times. does not make them completely legal.

go ahead and add me to the fucking list for complaining. I stopped flying about a decade ago. my dollars are not going to help the airline industry or anything directly related. I vote with my dollars since my elected officials stopped voting for what was right.

In the rest of the world, were air travel is likely to cross borders, checks have always been more strict. And with good reason. Hijacks were once common. Aircraft made good targets. It was tried with both ships and trains but they lack a sense of urgency, are to big, to open. So, something had to be done.

As an expat who is lived in quite a few different countries from South America and Latin America to Asia and has traveled to 50-60 different countries you are flat out simply dead wrong. Whether you are trying to be intentionally deceptive or not I don't know. Please provide citations to back up your comments. There isn't a single country in the whole world that has airport security even close to what the US has. Period. Even Cubans and citizens of other communist countries have more freedom to travel than